メニュー
Use when receiving code review feedback, before implementing suggestions, especially if feedback seems unclear or technically questionable. Requires technical rigor and verification — not performative agreement or blind implementation.
Codex または Claude でインストール この Prompt をコピーして Codex、Claude、または他のアシスタントに貼り付けると、Skill ページを確認してインストールできます。
SOC 職業分類に基づく
| name | sp-receiving-code-review |
| description | Use when receiving code review feedback, before implementing suggestions, especially if feedback seems unclear or technically questionable. Requires technical rigor and verification — not performative agreement or blind implementation. |
| tags | ["code-review","communication","quality","verification","workflow"] |
| version | 1.0.0 |
| risk | guarded |
| triggers | ["receiving code review","code review feedback","reviewer said","fix review comments","respond to review","implement review feedback","address review"] |
| requirements | {"cli":[],"env":[]} |
| upstream_ref | skills/receiving-code-review/SKILL.md |
| author | AlphaComposite |
| license | MIT |
| dependencies | ["sp-verification-before-completion"] |
Code review requires technical evaluation, not emotional performance.
Core principle: Verify before implementing. Ask before assuming. Technical correctness over social comfort.
WHEN receiving code review feedback:
1. READ: Complete feedback without reacting
2. UNDERSTAND: Restate requirement in own words (or ask)
3. VERIFY: Check against codebase reality
4. EVALUATE: Technically sound for THIS codebase?
5. RESPOND: Technical acknowledgment or reasoned pushback
6. IMPLEMENT: One item at a time, test each
NEVER:
INSTEAD:
IF any item is unclear:
STOP — do not implement anything yet
ASK for clarification on unclear items
WHY: Items may be related. Partial understanding = wrong implementation.
Example:
Reviewer: "Fix 1-6"
You understand 1,2,3,6. Unclear on 4,5.
❌ WRONG: Implement 1,2,3,6 now, ask about 4,5 later
✅ RIGHT: "I understand items 1,2,3,6. Need clarification on 4 and 5 before proceeding."
BEFORE implementing:
1. Check: Technically correct for THIS codebase?
2. Check: Breaks existing functionality?
3. Check: Reason for current implementation?
4. Check: Works on all platforms/versions?
5. Check: Does reviewer understand full context?
IF suggestion seems wrong:
Push back with technical reasoning
IF can't easily verify:
Say so: "I can't verify this without [X]. Should I [investigate/ask/proceed]?"
IF conflicts with prior architectural decisions:
Stop and discuss with the human partner first
Rule: "External feedback — be skeptical, but check carefully."
IF reviewer suggests "implementing properly":
Search codebase for actual usage
IF unused: "This endpoint isn't called. Remove it (YAGNI)?"
IF used: Then implement properly
Rule: "You and reviewer both report to the human partner. If a feature isn't needed, don't add it."
FOR multi-item feedback:
1. Clarify anything unclear FIRST
2. Then implement in this order:
- Blocking issues (breaks, security)
- Simple fixes (typos, imports)
- Complex fixes (refactoring, logic)
3. Test each fix individually
4. Verify no regressions
Use sp-verification-before-completion before claiming any fix is done.
Push back when:
How to push back:
When feedback IS correct:
✅ "Fixed. [Brief description of what changed]"
✅ "Good catch — [specific issue]. Fixed in [location]."
✅ [Just fix it and show in the code]
❌ "You're absolutely right!"
❌ "Great point!"
❌ "Thanks for catching that!"
❌ ANY gratitude expression
Why no thanks: Actions speak. Just fix it. The code itself shows you heard the feedback.
If you catch yourself about to write "Thanks": DELETE IT. State the fix instead.
If you pushed back and were wrong:
✅ "You were right — I checked [X] and it does [Y]. Implementing now."
✅ "Verified this and you're correct. My initial understanding was wrong because [reason]. Fixing."
❌ Long apology
❌ Defending why you pushed back
❌ Over-explaining
State the correction factually and move on.
| Mistake | Fix |
|---|---|
| Performative agreement | State requirement or just act |
| Blind implementation | Verify against codebase first |
| Batch without testing | One at a time, test each |
| Assuming reviewer is right | Check if it breaks things |
| Avoiding pushback | Technical correctness > comfort |
| Partial implementation | Clarify all items first |
| Can't verify, proceed anyway | State limitation, ask for direction |
Performative Agreement (Bad):
Reviewer: "Remove legacy code"
❌ "You're absolutely right! Let me remove that..."
Technical Verification (Good):
Reviewer: "Remove legacy code"
✅ "Checking... build target is 10.15+, this API needs 13+. Need legacy for backward compat. Current impl has wrong bundle ID — fix it or drop pre-13 support?"
YAGNI (Good):
Reviewer: "Implement proper metrics tracking with database, date filters, CSV export"
✅ "Searched codebase — nothing calls this endpoint. Remove it (YAGNI)? Or is there usage I'm missing?"
Unclear Item (Good):
Reviewer: "Fix items 1-6"
You understand 1,2,3,6. Unclear on 4,5.
✅ "Understand 1,2,3,6. Need clarification on 4 and 5 before implementing."
When replying to inline review comments on GitHub, reply in the comment thread (not as a top-level PR comment).
External feedback = suggestions to evaluate, not orders to follow.
Verify. Question. Then implement.
No performative agreement. Technical rigor always.
Use when a major project step has been completed and needs review against the original plan and coding standards. Provides the Senior Code Reviewer persona for structured 6-phase review: plan alignment, code quality, architecture, documentation, issue categorization, and communication.
Use when you need to trigger brainstorm, write-plan, or execute-plan workflows via short command shortcuts. These are thin dispatchers that invoke the corresponding sp- skills.
Use when creating new skills, editing existing skills, or verifying skills work before deployment. Apply TDD cycle: baseline test first, write skill second, refactor to close loopholes.
Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging. Dispatches a code-reviewer session to catch issues before they cascade. Review early, review often.
Use when facing 2+ independent tasks that can be worked on without shared state or sequential dependencies. Decision framework for when and how to dispatch parallel sub-agent sessions for faster resolution.
Use when implementation is complete and all tests pass, to decide how to integrate the work. Guides branch completion by presenting 4 structured options: merge locally, push and create a PR, keep as-is, or discard.